Parish, that is factually comparable to Emery, relied on Emery in keeping the plaintiffs acceptably alleged the sun and rain of the claim underneath the Illinois customer Fraud Act.
In Parish, the plaintiffs alleged the defendant useful Illinois was at the training of defrauding unsophisticated customers through a „loan-flipping” scheme. The Parishes described this scheme:
„A customer removes a loan that is initial useful Illinois and starts making prompt re re payments as dictated by the first loan papers. After some unspecified time period, the customer gets a letter from useful Illinois providing extra cash. The letter states that the customer is just a `great’ consumer in `good standing,’ and invites them in the future in and receive extra funds. Once the customer arrives at Defendant’s bar or nightclub and tenders the page, useful Illinois employees refinance the loan that is existing reissue certain insurance plans incidental to it. Useful Illinois will not notify its clients that the expense of refinancing their loans is significantly more than is the cost of taking right out a moment loan or extending credit underneath the present loan.” Parish, slide op. at ___.
The Parishes alleged in more detail two split occasions on that they accepted useful Illinois’ offer of extra money.
After explaining a „deceptive work or practice” beneath the customer Fraud Act, the court held:
„This court is pleased that the loan-flipping scheme alleged by Plaintiffs falls into this description that is broad. Reading the allegations into the problem within the light many favorable to Plaintiffs, useful Illinois delivered letters to a class of unsophisticated borrowers looking to deceive them into a crazy refinancing that no knowledgeable customer would accept. Continue reading